From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25380 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2002 01:24:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25372 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2002 01:24:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2002 01:24:56 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA09875; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D6AD4E6.E91859DF@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:31:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner CC: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] procfs.c: TARGET_CAN_USE_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINT via target vector References: <1020812213802.ZM1237@localhost.localdomain> <3D5975FF.3080106@ges.redhat.com> <1020813213928.ZM6904@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00883.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner wrote: > > On Aug 13, 5:11pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > +#ifndef TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS > > > > I just think the macro should be `largely' renamed: > > ``PROCFS_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS''. > > > > Largely? There are a few exceptions -- i386v-nat.c and mips/tm-embed.h > > which could be left alone. > > For the procfs related uses, I suspect that we can eliminate the use > of the macro altogether. (I'd prefer to get Michael's opinion though > before attempting such a change.) I don't see how you can eliminate the macro. How will you distinguish which procfs targets can support HW watchpoints?